Randy Dotinga

SAN DIEGO – When it comes to metabolic and endocrine health, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the furthest thing from a nonissue – it’s “a harbinger of deadly dysmetabolism,” said Christine Kessler, MN, ANP-BC, CNS, BC-ADM, FAANP, a nurse practitioner and founder of Metabolic Medicine Associates, King George, Va.

“I chase it, I follow it, I worry about it. Never look at it again as a benign thing,” Ms. Kessler said in a presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education. “It’s the most common chronic liver disease in the United States – move over, hep C ... and it’ll be the number one cause of liver transplant within 20 years.”

But the news isn’t all grim: NAFLD can be reversible, because the liver is one organ that can “take a licking and keep on ticking,” she said.

An estimated 30%-40% of adults in the United States have NAFLD, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The most severe form of the disease, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), causes liver cell damage and affects an estimated 3%-12% of adults.

Why worry about NAFLD? Because it can boost cardiovascular risk (especially in conjunction with metabolic syndrome) and the risk for liver cancer, said Ms. Kessler.

Among the risk factors for NAFLD are obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, polycystic ovary syndrome, and many others, including medications such as methotrexate, corticosteroids, and tetracyclines. Men, and Latino and Asian individuals are especially vulnerable, whereas black individuals may have protection against it.

Researchers are exploring the possibility that NAFLD is a “multihit” condition that is linked to multiple causes, possibly including overgrowth of bacteria in the gut, Ms. Kessler noted. It is not clear, however, whether regulation of gut microbiota would be helpful in preventing the condition.

Ms. Kessler urged her colleagues to consider workups in the following situations: when an incidental finding is noticed during imaging, when liver enzymes are abnormal (although they can misleadingly appear normal), and when there are overt symptoms of liver diseases. Causes such as alcohol use, medications, and hepatitis must first be ruled out, she said, and patients should be referred to a gastroenterologist if NAFLD is confirmed.

In regard to treatment, weight and diet control are crucial because they can have a significant impact in a patient with NAFLD. “You don’t come down with NAFLD, and then NASH, and then cirrhosis,” she explained. “It goes back and forth. You can go from normal liver to fatty liver, and back to normal. We’ve all seen it.”

Reduce weight, blood pressure, and blood sugar, she said, “and you’ll see NASH go to fatty liver, and fatty liver go over to normal. If you can have someone lose between 9% and 10% of their weight, you can turn around NASH. This is huge.”

As for medications, she said, “there is no one drug for fatty liver disease.” No medication has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of NAFLD or NASH, but there are several treatments that seem to be helpful, she said.

They include statins, though not for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, and some of the diabetes drugs – pioglitazone (Actos; to treat steatohepatitis in patients with or without type 2 diabetes who have biopsy-proven NASH); metformin (only in patients with diabetes); and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Also included among the therapies are vitamin E 800 IU/day and omega-3 fatty acids for patients who have a high levels of triglycerides, as well as lower-dose vitamin E (600 IU/day) and vitamin C (500 mg/day), which are best when used with lifestyle changes; increased choline intake – which supports liver health in menopausal women – from foods such as eggs; and milk thistle, which helps decrease liver inflammation.

Patients without chronic liver disease may find another helpful preventive tool on the shelves of their local liquor store: red wine, but with moderation, Ms. Kessler cautioned.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Kessler disclosed relationships as an adviser and speaker with Novo Nordisk, and with Clarion Brands.

SAN DIEGO – When it comes to metabolic and endocrine health, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the furthest thing from a nonissue – it’s “a harbinger of deadly dysmetabolism,” said Christine Kessler, MN, ANP-BC, CNS, BC-ADM, FAANP, a nurse practitioner and founder of Metabolic Medicine Associates, King George, Va.

“I chase it, I follow it, I worry about it. Never look at it again as a benign thing,” Ms. Kessler said in a presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education. “It’s the most common chronic liver disease in the United States – move over, hep C ... and it’ll be the number one cause of liver transplant within 20 years.”

But the news isn’t all grim: NAFLD can be reversible, because the liver is one organ that can “take a licking and keep on ticking,” she said.

An estimated 30%-40% of adults in the United States have NAFLD, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The most severe form of the disease, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), causes liver cell damage and affects an estimated 3%-12% of adults.

Why worry about NAFLD? Because it can boost cardiovascular risk (especially in conjunction with metabolic syndrome) and the risk for liver cancer, said Ms. Kessler.

Among the risk factors for NAFLD are obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, polycystic ovary syndrome, and many others, including medications such as methotrexate, corticosteroids, and tetracyclines. Men, and Latino and Asian individuals are especially vulnerable, whereas black individuals may have protection against it.

Researchers are exploring the possibility that NAFLD is a “multihit” condition that is linked to multiple causes, possibly including overgrowth of bacteria in the gut, Ms. Kessler noted. It is not clear, however, whether regulation of gut microbiota would be helpful in preventing the condition.

Ms. Kessler urged her colleagues to consider workups in the following situations: when an incidental finding is noticed during imaging, when liver enzymes are abnormal (although they can misleadingly appear normal), and when there are overt symptoms of liver diseases. Causes such as alcohol use, medications, and hepatitis must first be ruled out, she said, and patients should be referred to a gastroenterologist if NAFLD is confirmed.

In regard to treatment, weight and diet control are crucial because they can have a significant impact in a patient with NAFLD. “You don’t come down with NAFLD, and then NASH, and then cirrhosis,” she explained. “It goes back and forth. You can go from normal liver to fatty liver, and back to normal. We’ve all seen it.”

Reduce weight, blood pressure, and blood sugar, she said, “and you’ll see NASH go to fatty liver, and fatty liver go over to normal. If you can have someone lose between 9% and 10% of their weight, you can turn around NASH. This is huge.”

As for medications, she said, “there is no one drug for fatty liver disease.” No medication has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of NAFLD or NASH, but there are several treatments that seem to be helpful, she said.

They include statins, though not for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, and some of the diabetes drugs – pioglitazone (Actos; to treat steatohepatitis in patients with or without type 2 diabetes who have biopsy-proven NASH); metformin (only in patients with diabetes); and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Also included among the therapies are vitamin E 800 IU/day and omega-3 fatty acids for patients who have a high levels of triglycerides, as well as lower-dose vitamin E (600 IU/day) and vitamin C (500 mg/day), which are best when used with lifestyle changes; increased choline intake – which supports liver health in menopausal women – from foods such as eggs; and milk thistle, which helps decrease liver inflammation.

Patients without chronic liver disease may find another helpful preventive tool on the shelves of their local liquor store: red wine, but with moderation, Ms. Kessler cautioned.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Kessler disclosed relationships as an adviser and speaker with Novo Nordisk, and with Clarion Brands.

SAN DIEGO – When it comes to metabolic and endocrine health, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the furthest thing from a nonissue – it’s “a harbinger of deadly dysmetabolism,” said Christine Kessler, MN, ANP-BC, CNS, BC-ADM, FAANP, a nurse practitioner and founder of Metabolic Medicine Associates, King George, Va.

“I chase it, I follow it, I worry about it. Never look at it again as a benign thing,” Ms. Kessler said in a presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education. “It’s the most common chronic liver disease in the United States – move over, hep C ... and it’ll be the number one cause of liver transplant within 20 years.”

But the news isn’t all grim: NAFLD can be reversible, because the liver is one organ that can “take a licking and keep on ticking,” she said.

An estimated 30%-40% of adults in the United States have NAFLD, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The most severe form of the disease, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), causes liver cell damage and affects an estimated 3%-12% of adults.

Why worry about NAFLD? Because it can boost cardiovascular risk (especially in conjunction with metabolic syndrome) and the risk for liver cancer, said Ms. Kessler.

Among the risk factors for NAFLD are obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, polycystic ovary syndrome, and many others, including medications such as methotrexate, corticosteroids, and tetracyclines. Men, and Latino and Asian individuals are especially vulnerable, whereas black individuals may have protection against it.

Researchers are exploring the possibility that NAFLD is a “multihit” condition that is linked to multiple causes, possibly including overgrowth of bacteria in the gut, Ms. Kessler noted. It is not clear, however, whether regulation of gut microbiota would be helpful in preventing the condition.

Ms. Kessler urged her colleagues to consider workups in the following situations: when an incidental finding is noticed during imaging, when liver enzymes are abnormal (although they can misleadingly appear normal), and when there are overt symptoms of liver diseases. Causes such as alcohol use, medications, and hepatitis must first be ruled out, she said, and patients should be referred to a gastroenterologist if NAFLD is confirmed.

In regard to treatment, weight and diet control are crucial because they can have a significant impact in a patient with NAFLD. “You don’t come down with NAFLD, and then NASH, and then cirrhosis,” she explained. “It goes back and forth. You can go from normal liver to fatty liver, and back to normal. We’ve all seen it.”

Reduce weight, blood pressure, and blood sugar, she said, “and you’ll see NASH go to fatty liver, and fatty liver go over to normal. If you can have someone lose between 9% and 10% of their weight, you can turn around NASH. This is huge.”

As for medications, she said, “there is no one drug for fatty liver disease.” No medication has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of NAFLD or NASH, but there are several treatments that seem to be helpful, she said.

They include statins, though not for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, and some of the diabetes drugs – pioglitazone (Actos; to treat steatohepatitis in patients with or without type 2 diabetes who have biopsy-proven NASH); metformin (only in patients with diabetes); and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Also included among the therapies are vitamin E 800 IU/day and omega-3 fatty acids for patients who have a high levels of triglycerides, as well as lower-dose vitamin E (600 IU/day) and vitamin C (500 mg/day), which are best when used with lifestyle changes; increased choline intake – which supports liver health in menopausal women – from foods such as eggs; and milk thistle, which helps decrease liver inflammation.

Patients without chronic liver disease may find another helpful preventive tool on the shelves of their local liquor store: red wine, but with moderation, Ms. Kessler cautioned.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Kessler disclosed relationships as an adviser and speaker with Novo Nordisk, and with Clarion Brands.

SAN DIEGO – Whatever you do, don’t order a 24-hour urine test. Do encourage “pork holidays.” And choose between an ACE inhibitor and an ARB – don’t give them both to a single patient, according to Kim Zuber, PA-C, MS, a nephrology physician assistant from St. Petersburg, Fla., in a presentation about kidney disease, hypertension, and diabetes at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit, sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Ms. Zuber, who is the executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and the outreach chair of the National Kidney Foundation, outlined some approaches for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with comorbid hypertension and diabetes.

• Use the right urine test. Urine albumin testing, which detects albuminuria, is vital in patients who are at risk of chronic kidney disease, Ms. Zuber said, although it’s often not performed. In fact, research suggests that most Medicare patients with diabetes, hypertension, or both do not have this test, she said. Order a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test at least once a year in at-risk patients, she recommended, and more frequently if they show signs of abnormal values. But be aware, she said, some labs might refer to the test as microalbuminuria instead of UACR, and be prepared to calculate the UACR yourself if your institution provides only albumin and creatinine levels. Also watch out for mix-ups regarding UACR measurements. Nephrotic-range proteinuria starts at 3 g/dL or 3,000 mg/dL, she said, and residents often confuse those two sets of units. “Many have gotten in trouble with that,” she said.
• Don’t go near a 24-hour urine test. Thinking about ordering a 24-hour urine test that requires a patients to collect all their urine for a day? Think again. “We’ve been telling you almost 20 years not to do this,” Ms. Zuber said. These tests “are unreliable, and they don’t work.”
• Don’t focus on tight blood pressure control. Studies provide little insight into the ideal blood pressure readings for patients with diabetes and CKD, according to Ms. Zuber, but some findings suggest that tight control can be harmful to the kidneys. She urges her patients to treat hypertension in part by embracing lifestyle change. “I tell them that if you improve your lifestyle, you can give up one of your drugs. When they average 15 drugs a day, that becomes popular.” Physical activity, the DASH diet, salt restriction, moderate alcohol consumption, weight loss, stress reduction, and smoking cessation can all lower blood pressure, she added.
• Talk up the “pork holiday.” For patients with hypertension, “sodium restriction is huge,” Ms. Zuber said, especially among black patients. She urges her patients to take “pork holidays”, that is, eat pork only four times a year, on holidays such as the Fourth of July. She also urges them to prepare food in ways that begin with B, as in bake, boil, and barbecue. “You’ll notice that ‘fry’ doesn’t start with a B.”
• Try an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, but not both. In patients with hypertension plus diabetes and/or CKD, Ms. Zuber suggests using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blockers, but not both. One or the other can improve albuminuria, she said, but together they can boost risk of CKD, hyperkalemia, and hypotension.

Consider factors such as formularies and personal experience when trying to decide which drug to use, she said. If a patient still has hypertension, consider a diuretic and then move to a calcium channel or beta blocker. However, she cautioned, although beta blockers, they can cause erectile dysfunction.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Whatever you do, don’t order a 24-hour urine test. Do encourage “pork holidays.” And choose between an ACE inhibitor and an ARB – don’t give them both to a single patient, according to Kim Zuber, PA-C, MS, a nephrology physician assistant from St. Petersburg, Fla., in a presentation about kidney disease, hypertension, and diabetes at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit, sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Ms. Zuber, who is the executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and the outreach chair of the National Kidney Foundation, outlined some approaches for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with comorbid hypertension and diabetes.

• Use the right urine test. Urine albumin testing, which detects albuminuria, is vital in patients who are at risk of chronic kidney disease, Ms. Zuber said, although it’s often not performed. In fact, research suggests that most Medicare patients with diabetes, hypertension, or both do not have this test, she said. Order a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test at least once a year in at-risk patients, she recommended, and more frequently if they show signs of abnormal values. But be aware, she said, some labs might refer to the test as microalbuminuria instead of UACR, and be prepared to calculate the UACR yourself if your institution provides only albumin and creatinine levels. Also watch out for mix-ups regarding UACR measurements. Nephrotic-range proteinuria starts at 3 g/dL or 3,000 mg/dL, she said, and residents often confuse those two sets of units. “Many have gotten in trouble with that,” she said.
• Don’t go near a 24-hour urine test. Thinking about ordering a 24-hour urine test that requires a patients to collect all their urine for a day? Think again. “We’ve been telling you almost 20 years not to do this,” Ms. Zuber said. These tests “are unreliable, and they don’t work.”
• Don’t focus on tight blood pressure control. Studies provide little insight into the ideal blood pressure readings for patients with diabetes and CKD, according to Ms. Zuber, but some findings suggest that tight control can be harmful to the kidneys. She urges her patients to treat hypertension in part by embracing lifestyle change. “I tell them that if you improve your lifestyle, you can give up one of your drugs. When they average 15 drugs a day, that becomes popular.” Physical activity, the DASH diet, salt restriction, moderate alcohol consumption, weight loss, stress reduction, and smoking cessation can all lower blood pressure, she added.
• Talk up the “pork holiday.” For patients with hypertension, “sodium restriction is huge,” Ms. Zuber said, especially among black patients. She urges her patients to take “pork holidays”, that is, eat pork only four times a year, on holidays such as the Fourth of July. She also urges them to prepare food in ways that begin with B, as in bake, boil, and barbecue. “You’ll notice that ‘fry’ doesn’t start with a B.”
• Try an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, but not both. In patients with hypertension plus diabetes and/or CKD, Ms. Zuber suggests using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blockers, but not both. One or the other can improve albuminuria, she said, but together they can boost risk of CKD, hyperkalemia, and hypotension.

Consider factors such as formularies and personal experience when trying to decide which drug to use, she said. If a patient still has hypertension, consider a diuretic and then move to a calcium channel or beta blocker. However, she cautioned, although beta blockers, they can cause erectile dysfunction.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Whatever you do, don’t order a 24-hour urine test. Do encourage “pork holidays.” And choose between an ACE inhibitor and an ARB – don’t give them both to a single patient, according to Kim Zuber, PA-C, MS, a nephrology physician assistant from St. Petersburg, Fla., in a presentation about kidney disease, hypertension, and diabetes at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit, sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Ms. Zuber, who is the executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and the outreach chair of the National Kidney Foundation, outlined some approaches for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with comorbid hypertension and diabetes.

• Use the right urine test. Urine albumin testing, which detects albuminuria, is vital in patients who are at risk of chronic kidney disease, Ms. Zuber said, although it’s often not performed. In fact, research suggests that most Medicare patients with diabetes, hypertension, or both do not have this test, she said. Order a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test at least once a year in at-risk patients, she recommended, and more frequently if they show signs of abnormal values. But be aware, she said, some labs might refer to the test as microalbuminuria instead of UACR, and be prepared to calculate the UACR yourself if your institution provides only albumin and creatinine levels. Also watch out for mix-ups regarding UACR measurements. Nephrotic-range proteinuria starts at 3 g/dL or 3,000 mg/dL, she said, and residents often confuse those two sets of units. “Many have gotten in trouble with that,” she said.
• Don’t go near a 24-hour urine test. Thinking about ordering a 24-hour urine test that requires a patients to collect all their urine for a day? Think again. “We’ve been telling you almost 20 years not to do this,” Ms. Zuber said. These tests “are unreliable, and they don’t work.”
• Don’t focus on tight blood pressure control. Studies provide little insight into the ideal blood pressure readings for patients with diabetes and CKD, according to Ms. Zuber, but some findings suggest that tight control can be harmful to the kidneys. She urges her patients to treat hypertension in part by embracing lifestyle change. “I tell them that if you improve your lifestyle, you can give up one of your drugs. When they average 15 drugs a day, that becomes popular.” Physical activity, the DASH diet, salt restriction, moderate alcohol consumption, weight loss, stress reduction, and smoking cessation can all lower blood pressure, she added.
• Talk up the “pork holiday.” For patients with hypertension, “sodium restriction is huge,” Ms. Zuber said, especially among black patients. She urges her patients to take “pork holidays”, that is, eat pork only four times a year, on holidays such as the Fourth of July. She also urges them to prepare food in ways that begin with B, as in bake, boil, and barbecue. “You’ll notice that ‘fry’ doesn’t start with a B.”
• Try an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, but not both. In patients with hypertension plus diabetes and/or CKD, Ms. Zuber suggests using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blockers, but not both. One or the other can improve albuminuria, she said, but together they can boost risk of CKD, hyperkalemia, and hypotension.

Consider factors such as formularies and personal experience when trying to decide which drug to use, she said. If a patient still has hypertension, consider a diuretic and then move to a calcium channel or beta blocker. However, she cautioned, although beta blockers, they can cause erectile dysfunction.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber reported no disclosures.

Turns out the American Heart Association is onto something when it urges people to embrace its “Life’s Simple 7” (LS7) recommendations, a series of strategies designed to boost cardiovascular health. A new European study finds that people who follow the recommendations were more than half as likely to develop heart failure (HF) and that mastering just two of the seven criteria makes a big difference, compared with mastering none at all.

Ivan Mateev/iStockphoto

“Focusing on particular components of the American Heart Association LS7 could be seen as a way to improve cardiovascular health,” wrote the authors of the study, which appears in JACC: Heart Failure.

The LS7 encourages the following strategies:

• Manage blood pressure.
• Control cholesterol.
• Reduce blood sugar.
• Get active.
• Eat better.
• Lose weight.
• Stop smoking.

For the new study, researchers led by Alicia Uijl, MSc, of University College London and University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) retrospectively tracked 37,803 participants in a prospective Dutch study of cancer and nutrition.

The subjects, 75% women, had a mean age of 49 years. The group was much thinner, with a mean body mass index of 25 kg/m², than typical American men and women, whose mean BMIs are 29 and 30, per CDC statistics (Natl Health Stat Report. 2018 Dec;122:1-16)

Researchers gave the subjects an LS7 score (0-14) at baseline from 1993-1997. The score was based on whether they fully (2 points), partially (1) or not at all (0) met each of the LC7 criteria.

Most of the subjects failed to reach the ideal level of healthiness, which was defined as scores 11-14 and was achieved by 23%. The others were in the intermediate group (scores, 9-10 points; 35%) and inadequate group (scores, 0-8; 42%).

Over a median follow-up of 15 years, 2% of participants (690) developed HF. In an adjusted model, subjects in the top two groups (ideal and intermediate) were less likely to develop HF than were those in the lowest group (hazard ratios, 0.45 and 0.53, respectively).

The researchers found that diet, exercise, and cholesterol had lesser impacts on risk of HF than did the other elements. And they discovered that meeting the ideal level for just 2 of the 7 strategies would lower HF risk by 52%, compared with reaching no ideal levels.


What now? The high number of subjects in the lowest category suggests “there is ample room for improvements in healthy lifestyle behavior that may reduce HF in the general population,” the researchers wrote. “Given the robust associations between a healthy lifestyle and reduced incidence of HF, this study provides evidence that prevention of incident HF could be accomplished by implementing healthy lifestyle patterns.”

The study is funded by the European Commission, European Union/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and several other research organizations. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Uijl A et al. JACC: Heart Fail. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.03.009

Turns out the American Heart Association is onto something when it urges people to embrace its “Life’s Simple 7” (LS7) recommendations, a series of strategies designed to boost cardiovascular health. A new European study finds that people who follow the recommendations were more than half as likely to develop heart failure (HF) and that mastering just two of the seven criteria makes a big difference, compared with mastering none at all.

Ivan Mateev/iStockphoto

“Focusing on particular components of the American Heart Association LS7 could be seen as a way to improve cardiovascular health,” wrote the authors of the study, which appears in JACC: Heart Failure.

The LS7 encourages the following strategies:

• Manage blood pressure.
• Control cholesterol.
• Reduce blood sugar.
• Get active.
• Eat better.
• Lose weight.
• Stop smoking.

For the new study, researchers led by Alicia Uijl, MSc, of University College London and University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) retrospectively tracked 37,803 participants in a prospective Dutch study of cancer and nutrition.

The subjects, 75% women, had a mean age of 49 years. The group was much thinner, with a mean body mass index of 25 kg/m², than typical American men and women, whose mean BMIs are 29 and 30, per CDC statistics (Natl Health Stat Report. 2018 Dec;122:1-16)

Researchers gave the subjects an LS7 score (0-14) at baseline from 1993-1997. The score was based on whether they fully (2 points), partially (1) or not at all (0) met each of the LC7 criteria.

Most of the subjects failed to reach the ideal level of healthiness, which was defined as scores 11-14 and was achieved by 23%. The others were in the intermediate group (scores, 9-10 points; 35%) and inadequate group (scores, 0-8; 42%).

Over a median follow-up of 15 years, 2% of participants (690) developed HF. In an adjusted model, subjects in the top two groups (ideal and intermediate) were less likely to develop HF than were those in the lowest group (hazard ratios, 0.45 and 0.53, respectively).

The researchers found that diet, exercise, and cholesterol had lesser impacts on risk of HF than did the other elements. And they discovered that meeting the ideal level for just 2 of the 7 strategies would lower HF risk by 52%, compared with reaching no ideal levels.


What now? The high number of subjects in the lowest category suggests “there is ample room for improvements in healthy lifestyle behavior that may reduce HF in the general population,” the researchers wrote. “Given the robust associations between a healthy lifestyle and reduced incidence of HF, this study provides evidence that prevention of incident HF could be accomplished by implementing healthy lifestyle patterns.”

The study is funded by the European Commission, European Union/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and several other research organizations. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Uijl A et al. JACC: Heart Fail. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.03.009

Turns out the American Heart Association is onto something when it urges people to embrace its “Life’s Simple 7” (LS7) recommendations, a series of strategies designed to boost cardiovascular health. A new European study finds that people who follow the recommendations were more than half as likely to develop heart failure (HF) and that mastering just two of the seven criteria makes a big difference, compared with mastering none at all.

Ivan Mateev/iStockphoto

“Focusing on particular components of the American Heart Association LS7 could be seen as a way to improve cardiovascular health,” wrote the authors of the study, which appears in JACC: Heart Failure.

The LS7 encourages the following strategies:

• Manage blood pressure.
• Control cholesterol.
• Reduce blood sugar.
• Get active.
• Eat better.
• Lose weight.
• Stop smoking.

For the new study, researchers led by Alicia Uijl, MSc, of University College London and University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) retrospectively tracked 37,803 participants in a prospective Dutch study of cancer and nutrition.

The subjects, 75% women, had a mean age of 49 years. The group was much thinner, with a mean body mass index of 25 kg/m², than typical American men and women, whose mean BMIs are 29 and 30, per CDC statistics (Natl Health Stat Report. 2018 Dec;122:1-16)

Researchers gave the subjects an LS7 score (0-14) at baseline from 1993-1997. The score was based on whether they fully (2 points), partially (1) or not at all (0) met each of the LC7 criteria.

Most of the subjects failed to reach the ideal level of healthiness, which was defined as scores 11-14 and was achieved by 23%. The others were in the intermediate group (scores, 9-10 points; 35%) and inadequate group (scores, 0-8; 42%).

Over a median follow-up of 15 years, 2% of participants (690) developed HF. In an adjusted model, subjects in the top two groups (ideal and intermediate) were less likely to develop HF than were those in the lowest group (hazard ratios, 0.45 and 0.53, respectively).

The researchers found that diet, exercise, and cholesterol had lesser impacts on risk of HF than did the other elements. And they discovered that meeting the ideal level for just 2 of the 7 strategies would lower HF risk by 52%, compared with reaching no ideal levels.


What now? The high number of subjects in the lowest category suggests “there is ample room for improvements in healthy lifestyle behavior that may reduce HF in the general population,” the researchers wrote. “Given the robust associations between a healthy lifestyle and reduced incidence of HF, this study provides evidence that prevention of incident HF could be accomplished by implementing healthy lifestyle patterns.”

The study is funded by the European Commission, European Union/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and several other research organizations. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Uijl A et al. JACC: Heart Fail. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.03.009

Are preschoolers with signs of ADHD ready for school? A new study suggests they’re far from prepared.

A small sample of children with symptoms of moderate to severe ADHD scored markedly lower than comparable children on 8 of 10 measures of readiness for primary education in a study published in Pediatrics.

patchareeporn_s/Getty Images

SOURCE: Perrin HT et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Aug. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0038.

Are preschoolers with signs of ADHD ready for school? A new study suggests they’re far from prepared.

A small sample of children with symptoms of moderate to severe ADHD scored markedly lower than comparable children on 8 of 10 measures of readiness for primary education in a study published in Pediatrics.

patchareeporn_s/Getty Images

SOURCE: Perrin HT et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Aug. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0038.

Are preschoolers with signs of ADHD ready for school? A new study suggests they’re far from prepared.

A small sample of children with symptoms of moderate to severe ADHD scored markedly lower than comparable children on 8 of 10 measures of readiness for primary education in a study published in Pediatrics.

patchareeporn_s/Getty Images

SOURCE: Perrin HT et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Aug. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0038.

Fluad (aIIV3), an adjuvanted flu vaccine that’s recommended for people aged 65 and older, does a better job than do conventional flu vaccines in young children, according to an industry-funded synthesis of six studies.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The vaccine “offers significant advances over conventional inactivated influenza vaccines and presents an acceptable safety profile in children 6 months through 5 years of age,” Sanjay S. Patel, PhD, of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Cambridge, Mass., and associates wrote in the analysis, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. “The noteworthy increases in antibody responses and decreases in influenza cases following vaccination suggest an alternative for use in a population that is heavily impacted by influenza disease.”

Children are, of course, vulnerable to flu. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 186 children died of flu during the landmark 2017-2018 flu season. That’s the highest number of pediatric flu deaths since they became a notifiable condition in 2004 (exclusive of the 2009 pandemic, when 358 pediatric deaths were reported from April 15, 2009, to October 2, 2010).The CDC said the vaccine during that flu season had an overall effectiveness level of 40%. According to research of others, however, flu vaccines are less effective in younger children than in adolescents and adults (Vaccine. 2014;32[31]:3886-94; Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub3).

Fluad – a MF59-adjuvanted inactivated trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine – is used in adults over 65 in the United States and 29 other countries, and it is approved for children aged 6 months through 23 months in Canada.

Dr. Patel and associates examined the results of six studies – one phase 1b, three phase 2, and two phase 3 – that tested Fluad with or without other vaccines in 11,942 children aged 6 months to 5 years. The studies, mostly multicenter, were conducted in various countries, mainly in Europe and South and Central America, from 2006 to 2012.

In general, children in the intervention groups in the studies received two doses of the Fluad vaccine 4 weeks apart: two 0.25-mL doses for children aged 6-35 months and two 0.5-mL doses for those aged 3 years or older. In most of the studies, parallel control groups received nonadjuvanted trivalent or quadrivalent influenza vaccines.

Most participants (93%-94%) completed the studies. Solicited adverse effects were common in all groups (72% in the Fluad group vs. 67% who received IIV3 vaccines), and generally mild to moderate and resolved in 1-3 days. Unsolicited adverse effects were similar (55% and 62%, respectively) in the two flu vaccine groups. The authors wrote that “these data reflect a safety profile consistent with other licensed inactivated influenza vaccines administered to children.”

As for results, Dr. Patel and colleagues said, “HI [hemagglutination inhibition] antibody responses to both homologous and heterologous influenza strains are higher following vaccination with aIIV3, and this increase in immunogenicity is observed across all age subgroups in children aged 6 months through 5 years, and most profound in the children 6 to 36 months.”

For example, in one of the phase 3 studies when the influenza viruses were antigenically matched (homologous) for A/H1N1 among the children aged 6-35 months seroconversion was 100% for allV3 (Fluad) and 38% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4 (trivalent/quadrivalent flu vaccines); among children aged 3-5 years seroconversion was 100% for allV3 and 82% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4. For AH3N2 homologous among children aged 6-35 months, seroconversion was 98% for allV3 and 44% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4. For the B strain homologous among children aged 6-35 months, seroconversion was 88% for allV3 and 19% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4; among children aged 3-5 years seroconversion for B was 99% for allV3 and 59% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4.

In the same study when the influenza viruses were antigenically mismatched (heterologous) for A/H1N1 among children of all ages 6 months to greater than 72 months, seroconversion was 96% for allV3 (Fluad) and 44% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4; for A/H3N2 it was 98% for allV3 and 49% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4, and for the B strain it was 10% for allV3 and 3% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4.

They added that “in addition, aIIV3 had the fastest onset of immunogenicity and longest persistence of immune response, which has implications for the real-world clinical setting, where the influenza season might start earlier than expected or last longer, and second (follow-up) vaccinations may be missed.”

Dr. Patel and associates said the MF59 adjuvant in Fluad “recruits immune cells (primarily monocytes, macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells) at the site of injection and differentiates them into antigen-presenting cells. With an MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, more antigen is transported from the injection site to the draining lymph node, wherein MF59 leads to T-cell activation and an increased B-cell expansion and a greater number and diversity of antibodies.”

According to goodrx.com, one syringe of Fluad 0.5 mL costs $45-$74 with coupon. The same dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent, a flu vaccine recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in young children aged 6-35 months, costs $31 with coupon.

The study was funded by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics and Seqirus (formerly part of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics). The study authors disclosed employment by Novartis and Seqirus.

SOURCE: Patel SS et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2019.05.009.

Fluad (aIIV3), an adjuvanted flu vaccine that’s recommended for people aged 65 and older, does a better job than do conventional flu vaccines in young children, according to an industry-funded synthesis of six studies.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The vaccine “offers significant advances over conventional inactivated influenza vaccines and presents an acceptable safety profile in children 6 months through 5 years of age,” Sanjay S. Patel, PhD, of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Cambridge, Mass., and associates wrote in the analysis, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. “The noteworthy increases in antibody responses and decreases in influenza cases following vaccination suggest an alternative for use in a population that is heavily impacted by influenza disease.”

Children are, of course, vulnerable to flu. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 186 children died of flu during the landmark 2017-2018 flu season. That’s the highest number of pediatric flu deaths since they became a notifiable condition in 2004 (exclusive of the 2009 pandemic, when 358 pediatric deaths were reported from April 15, 2009, to October 2, 2010).The CDC said the vaccine during that flu season had an overall effectiveness level of 40%. According to research of others, however, flu vaccines are less effective in younger children than in adolescents and adults (Vaccine. 2014;32[31]:3886-94; Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub3).

Fluad – a MF59-adjuvanted inactivated trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine – is used in adults over 65 in the United States and 29 other countries, and it is approved for children aged 6 months through 23 months in Canada.

Dr. Patel and associates examined the results of six studies – one phase 1b, three phase 2, and two phase 3 – that tested Fluad with or without other vaccines in 11,942 children aged 6 months to 5 years. The studies, mostly multicenter, were conducted in various countries, mainly in Europe and South and Central America, from 2006 to 2012.

In general, children in the intervention groups in the studies received two doses of the Fluad vaccine 4 weeks apart: two 0.25-mL doses for children aged 6-35 months and two 0.5-mL doses for those aged 3 years or older. In most of the studies, parallel control groups received nonadjuvanted trivalent or quadrivalent influenza vaccines.

Most participants (93%-94%) completed the studies. Solicited adverse effects were common in all groups (72% in the Fluad group vs. 67% who received IIV3 vaccines), and generally mild to moderate and resolved in 1-3 days. Unsolicited adverse effects were similar (55% and 62%, respectively) in the two flu vaccine groups. The authors wrote that “these data reflect a safety profile consistent with other licensed inactivated influenza vaccines administered to children.”

As for results, Dr. Patel and colleagues said, “HI [hemagglutination inhibition] antibody responses to both homologous and heterologous influenza strains are higher following vaccination with aIIV3, and this increase in immunogenicity is observed across all age subgroups in children aged 6 months through 5 years, and most profound in the children 6 to 36 months.”

For example, in one of the phase 3 studies when the influenza viruses were antigenically matched (homologous) for A/H1N1 among the children aged 6-35 months seroconversion was 100% for allV3 (Fluad) and 38% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4 (trivalent/quadrivalent flu vaccines); among children aged 3-5 years seroconversion was 100% for allV3 and 82% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4. For AH3N2 homologous among children aged 6-35 months, seroconversion was 98% for allV3 and 44% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4. For the B strain homologous among children aged 6-35 months, seroconversion was 88% for allV3 and 19% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4; among children aged 3-5 years seroconversion for B was 99% for allV3 and 59% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4.

In the same study when the influenza viruses were antigenically mismatched (heterologous) for A/H1N1 among children of all ages 6 months to greater than 72 months, seroconversion was 96% for allV3 (Fluad) and 44% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4; for A/H3N2 it was 98% for allV3 and 49% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4, and for the B strain it was 10% for allV3 and 3% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4.

They added that “in addition, aIIV3 had the fastest onset of immunogenicity and longest persistence of immune response, which has implications for the real-world clinical setting, where the influenza season might start earlier than expected or last longer, and second (follow-up) vaccinations may be missed.”

Dr. Patel and associates said the MF59 adjuvant in Fluad “recruits immune cells (primarily monocytes, macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells) at the site of injection and differentiates them into antigen-presenting cells. With an MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, more antigen is transported from the injection site to the draining lymph node, wherein MF59 leads to T-cell activation and an increased B-cell expansion and a greater number and diversity of antibodies.”

According to goodrx.com, one syringe of Fluad 0.5 mL costs $45-$74 with coupon. The same dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent, a flu vaccine recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in young children aged 6-35 months, costs $31 with coupon.

The study was funded by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics and Seqirus (formerly part of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics). The study authors disclosed employment by Novartis and Seqirus.

SOURCE: Patel SS et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2019.05.009.

Fluad (aIIV3), an adjuvanted flu vaccine that’s recommended for people aged 65 and older, does a better job than do conventional flu vaccines in young children, according to an industry-funded synthesis of six studies.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The vaccine “offers significant advances over conventional inactivated influenza vaccines and presents an acceptable safety profile in children 6 months through 5 years of age,” Sanjay S. Patel, PhD, of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Cambridge, Mass., and associates wrote in the analysis, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. “The noteworthy increases in antibody responses and decreases in influenza cases following vaccination suggest an alternative for use in a population that is heavily impacted by influenza disease.”

Children are, of course, vulnerable to flu. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 186 children died of flu during the landmark 2017-2018 flu season. That’s the highest number of pediatric flu deaths since they became a notifiable condition in 2004 (exclusive of the 2009 pandemic, when 358 pediatric deaths were reported from April 15, 2009, to October 2, 2010).The CDC said the vaccine during that flu season had an overall effectiveness level of 40%. According to research of others, however, flu vaccines are less effective in younger children than in adolescents and adults (Vaccine. 2014;32[31]:3886-94; Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub3).

Fluad – a MF59-adjuvanted inactivated trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine – is used in adults over 65 in the United States and 29 other countries, and it is approved for children aged 6 months through 23 months in Canada.

Dr. Patel and associates examined the results of six studies – one phase 1b, three phase 2, and two phase 3 – that tested Fluad with or without other vaccines in 11,942 children aged 6 months to 5 years. The studies, mostly multicenter, were conducted in various countries, mainly in Europe and South and Central America, from 2006 to 2012.

In general, children in the intervention groups in the studies received two doses of the Fluad vaccine 4 weeks apart: two 0.25-mL doses for children aged 6-35 months and two 0.5-mL doses for those aged 3 years or older. In most of the studies, parallel control groups received nonadjuvanted trivalent or quadrivalent influenza vaccines.

Most participants (93%-94%) completed the studies. Solicited adverse effects were common in all groups (72% in the Fluad group vs. 67% who received IIV3 vaccines), and generally mild to moderate and resolved in 1-3 days. Unsolicited adverse effects were similar (55% and 62%, respectively) in the two flu vaccine groups. The authors wrote that “these data reflect a safety profile consistent with other licensed inactivated influenza vaccines administered to children.”

As for results, Dr. Patel and colleagues said, “HI [hemagglutination inhibition] antibody responses to both homologous and heterologous influenza strains are higher following vaccination with aIIV3, and this increase in immunogenicity is observed across all age subgroups in children aged 6 months through 5 years, and most profound in the children 6 to 36 months.”

For example, in one of the phase 3 studies when the influenza viruses were antigenically matched (homologous) for A/H1N1 among the children aged 6-35 months seroconversion was 100% for allV3 (Fluad) and 38% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4 (trivalent/quadrivalent flu vaccines); among children aged 3-5 years seroconversion was 100% for allV3 and 82% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4. For AH3N2 homologous among children aged 6-35 months, seroconversion was 98% for allV3 and 44% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4. For the B strain homologous among children aged 6-35 months, seroconversion was 88% for allV3 and 19% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4; among children aged 3-5 years seroconversion for B was 99% for allV3 and 59% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4.

In the same study when the influenza viruses were antigenically mismatched (heterologous) for A/H1N1 among children of all ages 6 months to greater than 72 months, seroconversion was 96% for allV3 (Fluad) and 44% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4; for A/H3N2 it was 98% for allV3 and 49% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4, and for the B strain it was 10% for allV3 and 3% for IIV3-1/IIV3-4.

They added that “in addition, aIIV3 had the fastest onset of immunogenicity and longest persistence of immune response, which has implications for the real-world clinical setting, where the influenza season might start earlier than expected or last longer, and second (follow-up) vaccinations may be missed.”

Dr. Patel and associates said the MF59 adjuvant in Fluad “recruits immune cells (primarily monocytes, macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells) at the site of injection and differentiates them into antigen-presenting cells. With an MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, more antigen is transported from the injection site to the draining lymph node, wherein MF59 leads to T-cell activation and an increased B-cell expansion and a greater number and diversity of antibodies.”

According to goodrx.com, one syringe of Fluad 0.5 mL costs $45-$74 with coupon. The same dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent, a flu vaccine recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in young children aged 6-35 months, costs $31 with coupon.

The study was funded by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics and Seqirus (formerly part of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics). The study authors disclosed employment by Novartis and Seqirus.

SOURCE: Patel SS et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2019.05.009.

A diet rich in plant-based foods, especially healthier ones, may ward off type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis of nine observational studies.

The findings aren’t conclusive, but the study authors wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine that they suggest that “plant-based dietary patterns were associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes, even after adjustment for [body mass index].”

According to 2015 figures provided by the American Diabetes Association, about 29 million people in the United States have type 2 diabetes. Overall, diabetes contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, which makes it the seventh-leading cause of death in the nation.

For the new analysis, researchers led by Frank Qian, MPH, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health included nine studies that examined diet and type 2 diabetes. In all, the studies included 307,099 participants, and there were 23,544 cases of incident type 2 diabetes. They were conducted in five countries, including the United States, and tracked participants for 2-28 years; the studies were all published within the last 11 years. The mean ages of participants ranged from 36-65 years.

The meta-analysis linked higher consumption of plant-based foods to a 23% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, compared with lower consumption (relative risk, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.84; P = .07 for heterogeneity). The risk dipped even further (down to 30%) when the researchers analyzed four studies that focused on healthy plant-based foods, such as fruits and vegetables, instead of foods such as refined grains, starches, and sugars (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79).

The researchers suggested that plant-based diets may lower the risk of diabetes type 2 by limiting weight gain. They also noted various limitations to their analysis, such as the reliance on self-reports and the observational nature of the studies.

Still, “in general populations that do not practice strict vegetarian or vegan diets, replacing animal products with healthful plant-based foods is likely to exert a significant reduction in the risk of diabetes,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and one author received support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest withing the scope of this study.

SOURCE: Qian F et al. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2019 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2195.

A diet rich in plant-based foods, especially healthier ones, may ward off type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis of nine observational studies.

The findings aren’t conclusive, but the study authors wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine that they suggest that “plant-based dietary patterns were associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes, even after adjustment for [body mass index].”

According to 2015 figures provided by the American Diabetes Association, about 29 million people in the United States have type 2 diabetes. Overall, diabetes contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, which makes it the seventh-leading cause of death in the nation.

For the new analysis, researchers led by Frank Qian, MPH, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health included nine studies that examined diet and type 2 diabetes. In all, the studies included 307,099 participants, and there were 23,544 cases of incident type 2 diabetes. They were conducted in five countries, including the United States, and tracked participants for 2-28 years; the studies were all published within the last 11 years. The mean ages of participants ranged from 36-65 years.

The meta-analysis linked higher consumption of plant-based foods to a 23% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, compared with lower consumption (relative risk, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.84; P = .07 for heterogeneity). The risk dipped even further (down to 30%) when the researchers analyzed four studies that focused on healthy plant-based foods, such as fruits and vegetables, instead of foods such as refined grains, starches, and sugars (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79).

The researchers suggested that plant-based diets may lower the risk of diabetes type 2 by limiting weight gain. They also noted various limitations to their analysis, such as the reliance on self-reports and the observational nature of the studies.

Still, “in general populations that do not practice strict vegetarian or vegan diets, replacing animal products with healthful plant-based foods is likely to exert a significant reduction in the risk of diabetes,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and one author received support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest withing the scope of this study.

SOURCE: Qian F et al. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2019 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2195.

A diet rich in plant-based foods, especially healthier ones, may ward off type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis of nine observational studies.

The findings aren’t conclusive, but the study authors wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine that they suggest that “plant-based dietary patterns were associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes, even after adjustment for [body mass index].”

According to 2015 figures provided by the American Diabetes Association, about 29 million people in the United States have type 2 diabetes. Overall, diabetes contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, which makes it the seventh-leading cause of death in the nation.

For the new analysis, researchers led by Frank Qian, MPH, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health included nine studies that examined diet and type 2 diabetes. In all, the studies included 307,099 participants, and there were 23,544 cases of incident type 2 diabetes. They were conducted in five countries, including the United States, and tracked participants for 2-28 years; the studies were all published within the last 11 years. The mean ages of participants ranged from 36-65 years.

The meta-analysis linked higher consumption of plant-based foods to a 23% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, compared with lower consumption (relative risk, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.84; P = .07 for heterogeneity). The risk dipped even further (down to 30%) when the researchers analyzed four studies that focused on healthy plant-based foods, such as fruits and vegetables, instead of foods such as refined grains, starches, and sugars (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79).

The researchers suggested that plant-based diets may lower the risk of diabetes type 2 by limiting weight gain. They also noted various limitations to their analysis, such as the reliance on self-reports and the observational nature of the studies.

Still, “in general populations that do not practice strict vegetarian or vegan diets, replacing animal products with healthful plant-based foods is likely to exert a significant reduction in the risk of diabetes,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and one author received support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest withing the scope of this study.

SOURCE: Qian F et al. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2019 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2195.

White people and older people are more likely than are nonwhites and young people to follow skin safety guidelines, according to a survey of passersby and skin-cancer screening attendees in Washington, D.C.

“These findings highlight the importance of tailoring free skin cancer screening events for nonwhite and younger populations,” senior author Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in a statement provided by the institution. “While free screening events are important, we also have to think about comprehensive, community-based solutions that reach broader demographic populations than skin cancer screenings alone.”

For the new study, which appears in the July 2019 issue of Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, researchers led by Emily C. Murphy, BS, of George Washington University, sought to better understand skin safety precautions in the population beyond those who attend skin cancer screenings (J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18[7]:649-53).

The study authors surveyed 285 passersby at six locations in Washington, D.C. (65% were female, 47% were under age 31, 48% were white, and 29% were black) and 144 attendees at a free skin cancer screening at George Washington University (70% were female, 16% were under 31, 44% were over 60, 73% were white, and 14% were black).

The attendees at the screening event were much more likely to engage in sun safety habits that are linked to lower risk of squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and melanoma: 34% always used sunscreen vs. 19% of the public group (P = .001), and 52% always sought shade vs. 32% of the public group (P = .002). Seventeen percent of the public group never used sunscreen compared with 8% of the screening group.


Whites and older subjects were more likely to embrace sun-safety practices. When the groups were combined, 84% of whites and 52% of blacks always or sometimes used sunscreen (P less than .0001). Those over 60 were much more likely to always seek shade than were those under 31 (53% vs. 24%, P less than .0001).

“The screening group was older and included more individuals with fair skin, highlighting the need to target younger and nonwhite populations for sun safety education,” the researchers wrote. “Encouraging sun safety in younger populations will decrease the risk of skin cancer for patients now and later in their lives. That said, educating populations who seek skin cancer screenings is still important given 22% of our screening cohort reported rarely or never wearing sunscreen, underscoring this program’s value.”

The researchers noted that the study’s limitations include its small size, the possibility that the public group had higher education rates because they were near a university, and the lack of insight into whether the public group represented the general population.

No study funding was reported. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

White people and older people are more likely than are nonwhites and young people to follow skin safety guidelines, according to a survey of passersby and skin-cancer screening attendees in Washington, D.C.

“These findings highlight the importance of tailoring free skin cancer screening events for nonwhite and younger populations,” senior author Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in a statement provided by the institution. “While free screening events are important, we also have to think about comprehensive, community-based solutions that reach broader demographic populations than skin cancer screenings alone.”

For the new study, which appears in the July 2019 issue of Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, researchers led by Emily C. Murphy, BS, of George Washington University, sought to better understand skin safety precautions in the population beyond those who attend skin cancer screenings (J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18[7]:649-53).

The study authors surveyed 285 passersby at six locations in Washington, D.C. (65% were female, 47% were under age 31, 48% were white, and 29% were black) and 144 attendees at a free skin cancer screening at George Washington University (70% were female, 16% were under 31, 44% were over 60, 73% were white, and 14% were black).

The attendees at the screening event were much more likely to engage in sun safety habits that are linked to lower risk of squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and melanoma: 34% always used sunscreen vs. 19% of the public group (P = .001), and 52% always sought shade vs. 32% of the public group (P = .002). Seventeen percent of the public group never used sunscreen compared with 8% of the screening group.


Whites and older subjects were more likely to embrace sun-safety practices. When the groups were combined, 84% of whites and 52% of blacks always or sometimes used sunscreen (P less than .0001). Those over 60 were much more likely to always seek shade than were those under 31 (53% vs. 24%, P less than .0001).

“The screening group was older and included more individuals with fair skin, highlighting the need to target younger and nonwhite populations for sun safety education,” the researchers wrote. “Encouraging sun safety in younger populations will decrease the risk of skin cancer for patients now and later in their lives. That said, educating populations who seek skin cancer screenings is still important given 22% of our screening cohort reported rarely or never wearing sunscreen, underscoring this program’s value.”

The researchers noted that the study’s limitations include its small size, the possibility that the public group had higher education rates because they were near a university, and the lack of insight into whether the public group represented the general population.

No study funding was reported. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

White people and older people are more likely than are nonwhites and young people to follow skin safety guidelines, according to a survey of passersby and skin-cancer screening attendees in Washington, D.C.

“These findings highlight the importance of tailoring free skin cancer screening events for nonwhite and younger populations,” senior author Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in a statement provided by the institution. “While free screening events are important, we also have to think about comprehensive, community-based solutions that reach broader demographic populations than skin cancer screenings alone.”

For the new study, which appears in the July 2019 issue of Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, researchers led by Emily C. Murphy, BS, of George Washington University, sought to better understand skin safety precautions in the population beyond those who attend skin cancer screenings (J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18[7]:649-53).

The study authors surveyed 285 passersby at six locations in Washington, D.C. (65% were female, 47% were under age 31, 48% were white, and 29% were black) and 144 attendees at a free skin cancer screening at George Washington University (70% were female, 16% were under 31, 44% were over 60, 73% were white, and 14% were black).

The attendees at the screening event were much more likely to engage in sun safety habits that are linked to lower risk of squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and melanoma: 34% always used sunscreen vs. 19% of the public group (P = .001), and 52% always sought shade vs. 32% of the public group (P = .002). Seventeen percent of the public group never used sunscreen compared with 8% of the screening group.


Whites and older subjects were more likely to embrace sun-safety practices. When the groups were combined, 84% of whites and 52% of blacks always or sometimes used sunscreen (P less than .0001). Those over 60 were much more likely to always seek shade than were those under 31 (53% vs. 24%, P less than .0001).

“The screening group was older and included more individuals with fair skin, highlighting the need to target younger and nonwhite populations for sun safety education,” the researchers wrote. “Encouraging sun safety in younger populations will decrease the risk of skin cancer for patients now and later in their lives. That said, educating populations who seek skin cancer screenings is still important given 22% of our screening cohort reported rarely or never wearing sunscreen, underscoring this program’s value.”

The researchers noted that the study’s limitations include its small size, the possibility that the public group had higher education rates because they were near a university, and the lack of insight into whether the public group represented the general population.

No study funding was reported. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Acne – which can appear anytime from the neonatal period to puberty – is most worrisome when it appears during the midchildhood years, from ages 1-7 years, according to Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD.

“This is something you are going to see in your practice,” said Dr. Friedlander, a pediatric dermatologists at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. It’s important to know when it’s time to be concerned and when another condition may be masquerading as acne, she said at the at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Dr. Friedlander, who is professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, talked about treating acne in the following prepubertal age groups:
 

Neonatal acne (ages birth to 4 weeks)

Acne appears in this population up to 20% of the time, according to research, and it is much more common in males than in females, at a ratio of five to one.

The cause is “most likely the relationship between placental androgens and the baby’s adrenal glands,” Dr. Friedlander said. However, something more serious could be going on. “Look at the child and see if he’s sick. If he looks sick, then we need to worry.”

Hormonal abnormalities also could be a cause, she said. Refer a baby to a specialist if there are other signs of hyperandrogenism. However, “the likelihood is very low,” and she’s never needed to refer a neonate with acne for evaluation.

As for treatment, she said, “Mainly, I’m using tincture of time.” However, “many of my mothers have told me that topical yogurt application will work.” Why yogurt? It’s possible that its bacteria could play a role in combating acne, she said.

Masquerader alert! Beware of neonatal cephalic pustulosis, Dr. Friedlander cautioned, which may be an inflammatory response to yeast. Ketoconazole cream may be helpful.
 

Infantile acne (ages 0-12 months)

This form of acne is more common in males and may hint at the future development of severe adolescent acne. It does resolve but it may take months or years, Dr. Friedlander said.

In general, this acne isn’t a sign of something more serious. “You do not need to go crazy with the work-up,” she said. “With mild to moderate disease, with nothing else suspicious, I don’t do a big work-up.”

However, do consider whether the child is undergoing precocious puberty, Dr. Friedlander said. Signs include axillary hair, pubic hair, and body odor.

As for treatment of infantile acne, “start out topically” and consider options such as Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim) and erythromycin.

Masquerader alert! Idiopathic facial aseptic granuloma can be mistaken for acne and abscess, and ultrasound is helpful to confirm it. “It’s not so easy to treat,” she said. “Ivermectin may be helpful. Sometimes you do cultures and make sure something else isn’t going on.”
 

Midchildhood (ages 1-7 years)

“It’s not as common to have acne develop in this age group, but when it develops you need to be concerned,” Dr. Friedlander said. “This is the age period when there is more often something really wrong.”

Be on the lookout for a family history of hormonal abnormalities, and check if the child is on medication. “You need to look carefully,” she said, adding that it’s important to check for signs of premature puberty such as giant spikes in growth, abnormally large hands and feet, genital changes, and body odor. Check blood pressure if you’re worried about an adrenal tumor.

It’s possible for children to develop precocious puberty – with acne – because of exposure to testosterone gel used by a father. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) creams also may cause the condition. “The more creams out there with androgenic effects, the more we may see it,” Dr. Friedlander said. “This is something to ask about because families may not be forthcoming.”

Masquerader alert! Perioral dermatitis may look like acne, and it may be linked to inhaled or topical steroids, she said.

Other masqueraders include demodex folliculitis, angiofibromas (think tuberous sclerosis), and keratosis pilaris (the most common type of bump on a children aged 1-7 years). The latter condition “is not the end of the world,” said Dr. Friedlander, who added that “I’ve never cured anyone of it.”
 

Prepubertal acne (ages 7 years to puberty)

Acne in this group is generally not worrisome, Dr. Friedlander said, but investigate further if there’s significant inflammation and signs of early sexual development or virilization.

Benzoyl peroxide wash may be enough to help the condition initially, and consider topical clindamycin or a combination product. “Start out slow,” she said. Twice a week to start might be appropriate. Moisturizers can be helpful, as can topical adapalene.

Also, keep in mind that even mild acne can be emotionally devastating to a child in this age group and worthy of treatment. “Your assessment may be very different than hers,” she said. It’s possible that “she has a few lesions, but she feels like an outcast.”

Dr. Friedlander reported no relevant financial disclosures. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Acne – which can appear anytime from the neonatal period to puberty – is most worrisome when it appears during the midchildhood years, from ages 1-7 years, according to Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD.

“This is something you are going to see in your practice,” said Dr. Friedlander, a pediatric dermatologists at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. It’s important to know when it’s time to be concerned and when another condition may be masquerading as acne, she said at the at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Dr. Friedlander, who is professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, talked about treating acne in the following prepubertal age groups:
 

Neonatal acne (ages birth to 4 weeks)

Acne appears in this population up to 20% of the time, according to research, and it is much more common in males than in females, at a ratio of five to one.

The cause is “most likely the relationship between placental androgens and the baby’s adrenal glands,” Dr. Friedlander said. However, something more serious could be going on. “Look at the child and see if he’s sick. If he looks sick, then we need to worry.”

Hormonal abnormalities also could be a cause, she said. Refer a baby to a specialist if there are other signs of hyperandrogenism. However, “the likelihood is very low,” and she’s never needed to refer a neonate with acne for evaluation.

As for treatment, she said, “Mainly, I’m using tincture of time.” However, “many of my mothers have told me that topical yogurt application will work.” Why yogurt? It’s possible that its bacteria could play a role in combating acne, she said.

Masquerader alert! Beware of neonatal cephalic pustulosis, Dr. Friedlander cautioned, which may be an inflammatory response to yeast. Ketoconazole cream may be helpful.
 

Infantile acne (ages 0-12 months)

This form of acne is more common in males and may hint at the future development of severe adolescent acne. It does resolve but it may take months or years, Dr. Friedlander said.

In general, this acne isn’t a sign of something more serious. “You do not need to go crazy with the work-up,” she said. “With mild to moderate disease, with nothing else suspicious, I don’t do a big work-up.”

However, do consider whether the child is undergoing precocious puberty, Dr. Friedlander said. Signs include axillary hair, pubic hair, and body odor.

As for treatment of infantile acne, “start out topically” and consider options such as Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim) and erythromycin.

Masquerader alert! Idiopathic facial aseptic granuloma can be mistaken for acne and abscess, and ultrasound is helpful to confirm it. “It’s not so easy to treat,” she said. “Ivermectin may be helpful. Sometimes you do cultures and make sure something else isn’t going on.”
 

Midchildhood (ages 1-7 years)

“It’s not as common to have acne develop in this age group, but when it develops you need to be concerned,” Dr. Friedlander said. “This is the age period when there is more often something really wrong.”

Be on the lookout for a family history of hormonal abnormalities, and check if the child is on medication. “You need to look carefully,” she said, adding that it’s important to check for signs of premature puberty such as giant spikes in growth, abnormally large hands and feet, genital changes, and body odor. Check blood pressure if you’re worried about an adrenal tumor.

It’s possible for children to develop precocious puberty – with acne – because of exposure to testosterone gel used by a father. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) creams also may cause the condition. “The more creams out there with androgenic effects, the more we may see it,” Dr. Friedlander said. “This is something to ask about because families may not be forthcoming.”

Masquerader alert! Perioral dermatitis may look like acne, and it may be linked to inhaled or topical steroids, she said.

Other masqueraders include demodex folliculitis, angiofibromas (think tuberous sclerosis), and keratosis pilaris (the most common type of bump on a children aged 1-7 years). The latter condition “is not the end of the world,” said Dr. Friedlander, who added that “I’ve never cured anyone of it.”
 

Prepubertal acne (ages 7 years to puberty)

Acne in this group is generally not worrisome, Dr. Friedlander said, but investigate further if there’s significant inflammation and signs of early sexual development or virilization.

Benzoyl peroxide wash may be enough to help the condition initially, and consider topical clindamycin or a combination product. “Start out slow,” she said. Twice a week to start might be appropriate. Moisturizers can be helpful, as can topical adapalene.

Also, keep in mind that even mild acne can be emotionally devastating to a child in this age group and worthy of treatment. “Your assessment may be very different than hers,” she said. It’s possible that “she has a few lesions, but she feels like an outcast.”

Dr. Friedlander reported no relevant financial disclosures. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Acne – which can appear anytime from the neonatal period to puberty – is most worrisome when it appears during the midchildhood years, from ages 1-7 years, according to Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD.

“This is something you are going to see in your practice,” said Dr. Friedlander, a pediatric dermatologists at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. It’s important to know when it’s time to be concerned and when another condition may be masquerading as acne, she said at the at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Dr. Friedlander, who is professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, talked about treating acne in the following prepubertal age groups:
 

Neonatal acne (ages birth to 4 weeks)

Acne appears in this population up to 20% of the time, according to research, and it is much more common in males than in females, at a ratio of five to one.

The cause is “most likely the relationship between placental androgens and the baby’s adrenal glands,” Dr. Friedlander said. However, something more serious could be going on. “Look at the child and see if he’s sick. If he looks sick, then we need to worry.”

Hormonal abnormalities also could be a cause, she said. Refer a baby to a specialist if there are other signs of hyperandrogenism. However, “the likelihood is very low,” and she’s never needed to refer a neonate with acne for evaluation.

As for treatment, she said, “Mainly, I’m using tincture of time.” However, “many of my mothers have told me that topical yogurt application will work.” Why yogurt? It’s possible that its bacteria could play a role in combating acne, she said.

Masquerader alert! Beware of neonatal cephalic pustulosis, Dr. Friedlander cautioned, which may be an inflammatory response to yeast. Ketoconazole cream may be helpful.
 

Infantile acne (ages 0-12 months)

This form of acne is more common in males and may hint at the future development of severe adolescent acne. It does resolve but it may take months or years, Dr. Friedlander said.

In general, this acne isn’t a sign of something more serious. “You do not need to go crazy with the work-up,” she said. “With mild to moderate disease, with nothing else suspicious, I don’t do a big work-up.”

However, do consider whether the child is undergoing precocious puberty, Dr. Friedlander said. Signs include axillary hair, pubic hair, and body odor.

As for treatment of infantile acne, “start out topically” and consider options such as Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim) and erythromycin.

Masquerader alert! Idiopathic facial aseptic granuloma can be mistaken for acne and abscess, and ultrasound is helpful to confirm it. “It’s not so easy to treat,” she said. “Ivermectin may be helpful. Sometimes you do cultures and make sure something else isn’t going on.”
 

Midchildhood (ages 1-7 years)

“It’s not as common to have acne develop in this age group, but when it develops you need to be concerned,” Dr. Friedlander said. “This is the age period when there is more often something really wrong.”

Be on the lookout for a family history of hormonal abnormalities, and check if the child is on medication. “You need to look carefully,” she said, adding that it’s important to check for signs of premature puberty such as giant spikes in growth, abnormally large hands and feet, genital changes, and body odor. Check blood pressure if you’re worried about an adrenal tumor.

It’s possible for children to develop precocious puberty – with acne – because of exposure to testosterone gel used by a father. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) creams also may cause the condition. “The more creams out there with androgenic effects, the more we may see it,” Dr. Friedlander said. “This is something to ask about because families may not be forthcoming.”

Masquerader alert! Perioral dermatitis may look like acne, and it may be linked to inhaled or topical steroids, she said.

Other masqueraders include demodex folliculitis, angiofibromas (think tuberous sclerosis), and keratosis pilaris (the most common type of bump on a children aged 1-7 years). The latter condition “is not the end of the world,” said Dr. Friedlander, who added that “I’ve never cured anyone of it.”
 

Prepubertal acne (ages 7 years to puberty)

Acne in this group is generally not worrisome, Dr. Friedlander said, but investigate further if there’s significant inflammation and signs of early sexual development or virilization.

Benzoyl peroxide wash may be enough to help the condition initially, and consider topical clindamycin or a combination product. “Start out slow,” she said. Twice a week to start might be appropriate. Moisturizers can be helpful, as can topical adapalene.

Also, keep in mind that even mild acne can be emotionally devastating to a child in this age group and worthy of treatment. “Your assessment may be very different than hers,” she said. It’s possible that “she has a few lesions, but she feels like an outcast.”

Dr. Friedlander reported no relevant financial disclosures. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Psoriasis often clears in pregnant women, giving them a rare break from the skin disease. But there still are plenty of reasons to pay close attention to psoriasis drugs in any women who is or could become pregnant.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Data from 2011 found 45% of pregnancies in U.S. women aged 15-44 years were unintended (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374[9]:843-52), cautioned Jashin J. Wu, MD, of Dermatology Research and Education Foundation, Irvine, Calif.

In a presentation at the Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar, Dr. Wu offered these tips about pregnancy and psoriasis:

Counsel patients before pregnancy

There’s conflicting data about the risks of psoriasis in pregnancy, Dr. Wu said. One 23-year-old study suggests a link to adverse outcomes such as preterm and low-birth-weight babies. But another more recent study found no sign of increased risk (Int J Dermatol. 1996;35:169-72; J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64:71-7).

Counseling can include information about risks such as hospitalization during pregnancy because of undertreatment of psoriasis, he said. Discuss lowering medication doses to the lowest effective dose, he recommended, and talk about alternatives to systemic medications.

Make adjustments to timing as needed

In patients with severe cases, it may be appropriate to recommend that they postpone pregnancy until their psoriasis is under better control. As for treatment of psoriasis, “you may want to consider timing medication to end around the first trimester to get the medication out of them during the greatest risk period for the baby,” Dr. Wu said.

Adjust steroids as necessary

There are no “good” studies about the use of steroids in pregnant women with psoriasis, Dr. Wu said. “We can probably assume they are safe overall. Weaker steroids may have less risk,” and some of the stronger steroids may raise concerns.

Dr. Wu made these recommendations: Limit mild-potency topical corticosteroids to less than 100 g/week, potent topical corticosteroids to less than 50 g/week, and superpotent topical corticosteroids to less than 30 g/week.

Some topical drugs appear to be OK

Vitamin D analogues have not been well-studied in pregnancy, he said, but “we consider topical use to be fairly safe.”

There’s no data on calcineurin inhibitors in pregnancy, he said, but topical use is considered to be safe because there’s limited systemic absorption.

Beware of certain drugs in pregnancyTazarotene is considered to be dangerous in pregnancy, Dr. Wu said, and females of childbearing age who take it should use effective contraception, and have a recent negative pregnancy test (within 2 weeks before treatment begins). “In general, I’d probably not use this,” he said. “We have so many other options.”

Data about pregnancy safety for three topical drugs – coal tar, anthralin, and salicylic acid – is limited or nonexistent, Dr. Wu said, and he recommends against their use in pregnancy.

Phototherapy is OK in pregnancy

Phototherapy is considered safe because UVB doesn’t penetrate the superficial layer of the skin, he said. But phototherapy brings a potential risk of lowered folic acid levels, and he urges folic acid supplementation in women undergoing the treatment who are considering pregnancy or who are in the first trimester.

Avoid certain systemic drugs

Dr. Wu offered these recommendations:

• Methotrexate: Do not take during pregnancy, or 3 months prior to conception.
• Acitretin (Soriatane): Avoid all use in women who may become pregnant.
• Cyclosporine: Be aware of reports of prematurity and low birth weight linked to the drug.
• Apremilast (Otezla): Animal studies have shown a risk in pregnancy. Stop the drug at least 2 days before conception.

Avoid monoclonal antibodies

These drugs “result in therapeutic levels in the fetus, which is not a good thing,” Dr. Wu said. “You obviously don’t want to have monoclonal antibodies in the baby.”

Nix the PUVA

While one study found no link between psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) and birth defects (Arch Dermatol. 1993 Mar;129[3]:320-3), there’s still a theoretical risk, Dr. Wu said. He recommended that the treatment be avoided during pregnancy.

Watch for waxing and waning

Dr. Wu pointed to a small 2005 study that suggested that psoriasis activity declines during pregnancy. The study used different measures, finding that psoriasis improved by 30% (based on at least a 3% change in body surface area) or 55% (based on patient self-reporting). But it flares after pregnancy as reported by 65% of women surveyed; a body surface area analysis found that psoriasis worsened in 41% (Arch Dermatol. 2005 May;141[5]:601-6).

Dr. Wu reports various relationships (research, consultation and speaking) with 15 pharmaceutical companies. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Psoriasis often clears in pregnant women, giving them a rare break from the skin disease. But there still are plenty of reasons to pay close attention to psoriasis drugs in any women who is or could become pregnant.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Data from 2011 found 45% of pregnancies in U.S. women aged 15-44 years were unintended (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374[9]:843-52), cautioned Jashin J. Wu, MD, of Dermatology Research and Education Foundation, Irvine, Calif.

In a presentation at the Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar, Dr. Wu offered these tips about pregnancy and psoriasis:

Counsel patients before pregnancy

There’s conflicting data about the risks of psoriasis in pregnancy, Dr. Wu said. One 23-year-old study suggests a link to adverse outcomes such as preterm and low-birth-weight babies. But another more recent study found no sign of increased risk (Int J Dermatol. 1996;35:169-72; J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64:71-7).

Counseling can include information about risks such as hospitalization during pregnancy because of undertreatment of psoriasis, he said. Discuss lowering medication doses to the lowest effective dose, he recommended, and talk about alternatives to systemic medications.

Make adjustments to timing as needed

In patients with severe cases, it may be appropriate to recommend that they postpone pregnancy until their psoriasis is under better control. As for treatment of psoriasis, “you may want to consider timing medication to end around the first trimester to get the medication out of them during the greatest risk period for the baby,” Dr. Wu said.

Adjust steroids as necessary

There are no “good” studies about the use of steroids in pregnant women with psoriasis, Dr. Wu said. “We can probably assume they are safe overall. Weaker steroids may have less risk,” and some of the stronger steroids may raise concerns.

Dr. Wu made these recommendations: Limit mild-potency topical corticosteroids to less than 100 g/week, potent topical corticosteroids to less than 50 g/week, and superpotent topical corticosteroids to less than 30 g/week.

Some topical drugs appear to be OK

Vitamin D analogues have not been well-studied in pregnancy, he said, but “we consider topical use to be fairly safe.”

There’s no data on calcineurin inhibitors in pregnancy, he said, but topical use is considered to be safe because there’s limited systemic absorption.

Beware of certain drugs in pregnancyTazarotene is considered to be dangerous in pregnancy, Dr. Wu said, and females of childbearing age who take it should use effective contraception, and have a recent negative pregnancy test (within 2 weeks before treatment begins). “In general, I’d probably not use this,” he said. “We have so many other options.”

Data about pregnancy safety for three topical drugs – coal tar, anthralin, and salicylic acid – is limited or nonexistent, Dr. Wu said, and he recommends against their use in pregnancy.

Phototherapy is OK in pregnancy

Phototherapy is considered safe because UVB doesn’t penetrate the superficial layer of the skin, he said. But phototherapy brings a potential risk of lowered folic acid levels, and he urges folic acid supplementation in women undergoing the treatment who are considering pregnancy or who are in the first trimester.

Avoid certain systemic drugs

Dr. Wu offered these recommendations:

• Methotrexate: Do not take during pregnancy, or 3 months prior to conception.
• Acitretin (Soriatane): Avoid all use in women who may become pregnant.
• Cyclosporine: Be aware of reports of prematurity and low birth weight linked to the drug.
• Apremilast (Otezla): Animal studies have shown a risk in pregnancy. Stop the drug at least 2 days before conception.

Avoid monoclonal antibodies

These drugs “result in therapeutic levels in the fetus, which is not a good thing,” Dr. Wu said. “You obviously don’t want to have monoclonal antibodies in the baby.”

Nix the PUVA

While one study found no link between psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) and birth defects (Arch Dermatol. 1993 Mar;129[3]:320-3), there’s still a theoretical risk, Dr. Wu said. He recommended that the treatment be avoided during pregnancy.

Watch for waxing and waning

Dr. Wu pointed to a small 2005 study that suggested that psoriasis activity declines during pregnancy. The study used different measures, finding that psoriasis improved by 30% (based on at least a 3% change in body surface area) or 55% (based on patient self-reporting). But it flares after pregnancy as reported by 65% of women surveyed; a body surface area analysis found that psoriasis worsened in 41% (Arch Dermatol. 2005 May;141[5]:601-6).

Dr. Wu reports various relationships (research, consultation and speaking) with 15 pharmaceutical companies. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Psoriasis often clears in pregnant women, giving them a rare break from the skin disease. But there still are plenty of reasons to pay close attention to psoriasis drugs in any women who is or could become pregnant.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Data from 2011 found 45% of pregnancies in U.S. women aged 15-44 years were unintended (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 3;374[9]:843-52), cautioned Jashin J. Wu, MD, of Dermatology Research and Education Foundation, Irvine, Calif.

In a presentation at the Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar, Dr. Wu offered these tips about pregnancy and psoriasis:

Counsel patients before pregnancy

There’s conflicting data about the risks of psoriasis in pregnancy, Dr. Wu said. One 23-year-old study suggests a link to adverse outcomes such as preterm and low-birth-weight babies. But another more recent study found no sign of increased risk (Int J Dermatol. 1996;35:169-72; J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64:71-7).

Counseling can include information about risks such as hospitalization during pregnancy because of undertreatment of psoriasis, he said. Discuss lowering medication doses to the lowest effective dose, he recommended, and talk about alternatives to systemic medications.

Make adjustments to timing as needed

In patients with severe cases, it may be appropriate to recommend that they postpone pregnancy until their psoriasis is under better control. As for treatment of psoriasis, “you may want to consider timing medication to end around the first trimester to get the medication out of them during the greatest risk period for the baby,” Dr. Wu said.

Adjust steroids as necessary

There are no “good” studies about the use of steroids in pregnant women with psoriasis, Dr. Wu said. “We can probably assume they are safe overall. Weaker steroids may have less risk,” and some of the stronger steroids may raise concerns.

Dr. Wu made these recommendations: Limit mild-potency topical corticosteroids to less than 100 g/week, potent topical corticosteroids to less than 50 g/week, and superpotent topical corticosteroids to less than 30 g/week.

Some topical drugs appear to be OK

Vitamin D analogues have not been well-studied in pregnancy, he said, but “we consider topical use to be fairly safe.”

There’s no data on calcineurin inhibitors in pregnancy, he said, but topical use is considered to be safe because there’s limited systemic absorption.

Beware of certain drugs in pregnancyTazarotene is considered to be dangerous in pregnancy, Dr. Wu said, and females of childbearing age who take it should use effective contraception, and have a recent negative pregnancy test (within 2 weeks before treatment begins). “In general, I’d probably not use this,” he said. “We have so many other options.”

Data about pregnancy safety for three topical drugs – coal tar, anthralin, and salicylic acid – is limited or nonexistent, Dr. Wu said, and he recommends against their use in pregnancy.

Phototherapy is OK in pregnancy

Phototherapy is considered safe because UVB doesn’t penetrate the superficial layer of the skin, he said. But phototherapy brings a potential risk of lowered folic acid levels, and he urges folic acid supplementation in women undergoing the treatment who are considering pregnancy or who are in the first trimester.

Avoid certain systemic drugs

Dr. Wu offered these recommendations:

• Methotrexate: Do not take during pregnancy, or 3 months prior to conception.
• Acitretin (Soriatane): Avoid all use in women who may become pregnant.
• Cyclosporine: Be aware of reports of prematurity and low birth weight linked to the drug.
• Apremilast (Otezla): Animal studies have shown a risk in pregnancy. Stop the drug at least 2 days before conception.

Avoid monoclonal antibodies

These drugs “result in therapeutic levels in the fetus, which is not a good thing,” Dr. Wu said. “You obviously don’t want to have monoclonal antibodies in the baby.”

Nix the PUVA

While one study found no link between psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) and birth defects (Arch Dermatol. 1993 Mar;129[3]:320-3), there’s still a theoretical risk, Dr. Wu said. He recommended that the treatment be avoided during pregnancy.

Watch for waxing and waning

Dr. Wu pointed to a small 2005 study that suggested that psoriasis activity declines during pregnancy. The study used different measures, finding that psoriasis improved by 30% (based on at least a 3% change in body surface area) or 55% (based on patient self-reporting). But it flares after pregnancy as reported by 65% of women surveyed; a body surface area analysis found that psoriasis worsened in 41% (Arch Dermatol. 2005 May;141[5]:601-6).

Dr. Wu reports various relationships (research, consultation and speaking) with 15 pharmaceutical companies. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
 

Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.

“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.

Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”

“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”

According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.

“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.

Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”

“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
 

The side effects

While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.

GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.

“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”

Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.

These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.

“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

The benefits

Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.

Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-­analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).

“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.

SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.

“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.

SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."

Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.

Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”

Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).

In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).

These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”

Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.

For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”

Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”

Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).

“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.

Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
 

The combination therapies

Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).

Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
 

Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.

There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
 

What about adding insulin?

“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A_1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”

Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.

“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.

Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.

“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.

Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.

klennon@mdedge.com

The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
 

Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.

“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.

Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”

“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”

According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.

“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.

Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”

“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
 

The side effects

While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.

GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.

“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”

Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.

These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.

“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

The benefits

Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.

Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-­analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).

“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.

SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.

“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.

SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."

Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.

Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”

Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).

In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).

These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”

Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.

For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”

Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”

Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).

“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.

Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
 

The combination therapies

Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).

Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
 

Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.

There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
 

What about adding insulin?

“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A_1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”

Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.

“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.

Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.

“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.

Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.

klennon@mdedge.com

The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
 

Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.

“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.

Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”

“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”

According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.

“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.

Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”

“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
 

The side effects

While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.

GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.

“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”

Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.

These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.

“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

The benefits

Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.

Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-­analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).

“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.

SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.

“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.

SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."

Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.

Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”

Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).

In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).

These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”

Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.

For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”

Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”

Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).

“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.

Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
 

The combination therapies

Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).

Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
 

Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.

There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
 

What about adding insulin?

“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A_1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”

Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.

“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.

Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.

“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.

Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.

klennon@mdedge.com